Gujarat Court August 1973 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premraj Ganpatraj and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR447(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. In this reference the Tribunal has referred the following question to us for our opinion : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to pass orders under section 154 on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record ?'The question arises in the following circumstances : The relevant assessment years are 1962-63 and 1963-64. In the course of that year the Income-tax Officer, while working out the capital employed for the purpose of section 84, added Rs. 1,15,807, being half of the profit of the relevant accounting year. Similar addition was made for the assessment year 1963-64 when an amount of Rs. 1,93,628, being half the share of the profit, was added for purposes of ascertaining the average amount of the capital. The capital thus worked out at Rs. 5,97,313 and Rs. 7,81,916 for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively. It appears that subsequently the Income-tax Officer was of the view...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Iii Vs. Dhanji Shamji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR173(Guj)
Diwan, C.J. 1. The question in each of these four references has been referred to this court at the instance of the revenue and the question is similar in each case, namely : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to the set-off of speculation loss of Rs. 26,947 determined for the assessment year 1962-63, against speculation profit made in the year under reference ?' 2. The year under reference is different in each of the four cases which are governed by the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not by the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment years are different in each case and the figure of carried forward loss is different in each case but the question of law which has been referred is the same, namely, whether a registered firm an carry forward losses incurred in speculation business and have them set off against profits made in a subsequent year, also from speculation business. 3. Each of the four ...
Tag this Judgment!The New Ashapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Arvind ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Guj76; (1975)0GLR53
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A question which almost every day enters the door of the Court-room relating to the, true scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the real content of the expression 'jurisdiction' employed therein, has presented itself in these two References made by P, D. Desai, J. The question has been raised in the context of an order passed by the learned Chamber Judge of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court under Rule 143 of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules read with 0. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the petitioners-defendants have been directed to deposit certain sums by way of security as a condition precedent to their being permitted to defend a suit on merits. The same advocates represent the Parties and the question involved is identical. Convenience therefore demands that both are disposed of by this common judgment.2. It appears that there are a number of decisions in which conflicting opinions have been expressed on this question. That is why P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashigar Ratangar Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1973
Reported in: 1975CriLJ963; (1974)15GLR289
ORDERJ.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj recommending that the order passed by the learned Judicial' Magistrate, First Class, Mandvi in Criminal Case No. 979 of 1972, convicting the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 131 read with Section 33(1)(v)(i) of the Bombay Police Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- and in default to undergo two days' simple imprisonment, be set aside, as it is illegal, the reason being that a complaint filed against him in respect of that very offence in that very Court by another policeman named Dalabhai was dismissed .and the petitioner-accused was acquitted under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 7-9-1972 in that Criirunal Case No. 1015 of 1972. .2, This recommendation haB been made by him on the basis of the provisions of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:-A person who has once been ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kril Standard Products Private Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-1973
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas203(Guj); (1974)0GLR810
D.A. Desai, J.1. Kril Standard Products Private Ltd., petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company'), has filed this petition under section 391(2) read with section 394 of the Companies Act praying for an order sanctioning the scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of the transferor-company with the Art Leather Private Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee-company') and for making consequential orders as envisaged by section 394. The transferor-company was incorporated on 23rd October, 1964, with a nominal capital of Rs. 5 lakhs divided into five thousand equity shares of Rs. 100 each and the entire nominal capital was issued and subscribed and the equity shares are fully paid shares. The transferor-company was formed with the principal object of manufacturing, producing, assembling, preparing, converting, repairing, etc., injection moulding machines, apparatus and the accessories, spare parts, etc., relating thereto. The company also for some tine ...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Chhotalal Chhatrapati and ors. Vs. Bhalchandra Chhaganlal Sha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR193
P.V. Desai, J.1. In the town of Jambusar, there is a piece or parcel of open land (building site) bearing City Survey No. 4013 admeasuring 24 square yards. This piece or parcel of land will be referred to as the suit land or mortgaged property in the course of this Judgement. One Bai Mani, widow of Vishnushanker Bhavanishanker, was the original owner of this property. There was some dispute between the parties as to how Bai Mani acquired title over this property. The contention of the respondent-plaintiff was that the property was bequeathed to her by her husband under his will dated April 19, 1893. This version put forward on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff has, however, not been accepted by the lower appellate Court which has found that Bai Mani had in fact purchased the same from Jagmohandas Jugaldas and another by a registered sale deed dated November 10, 1905 (Ex. 52). It appears that Bai Mani mortgaged the suit property to one Chhotalal Mathurdas Chhatrapati by a registered do...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: [1976]105ITR674(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee and the following question has been referred to us for our decision : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty could be legally leviable in reassessment proceedings for the original default of not filing the return ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment years are 1955-56, 1957-58 and 1960-61. The assessee was carrying on business as an individual in the relevant years and was the recipient of income from some foreign concerns. He did not file returns under section 22(1) for the respective assessment years. His explanation for not returning the income from the foreign concerns for the respective relevant assessment years was ultimately rejected by the revenue authorities. The Income-tax Officer having come to know that the assessee had not disclosed the commission from the foreign firms, initiated proceedings for reopening the assessments under section...
Tag this Judgment!Shanabhai P. Patel Vs. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR141(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent on March 31, 1970, for purposes of reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66. The challenged has arisen in the following circumstances : The petitioner was assessed to income-tax as an individual for the assessment year 1965-66 and his assessment order was made in respect of the said year on February 5, 1966. It appears that on March 31, 1970, the respondent issued a notice under section 148 of the Act for purposes of reassessing the petitioner. The said notice was posted on the same day at Navrangpura post office at Ahmedabad. However, this notice reached the petitioner on April 3, 1970. By this notice under section 148, the petitioner was called upon to make the return, if he so desired, within 30 days of the service of the notice. Being aggrieved by this notice, which, according to the petitioner, was served beyond the prescribed perio...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatrao Jayavantrao Deshmukh Vs. Sagnubai Ramchandra Yadav ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR300
T.U. Mehta, J.1. In this revision application the only point which at present survives for consideration is whether the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent in form of education cess of Rs. 4.55 due for the period from 1-4-65 to 31-3-66. The opponents Nos. 1 and 2 have claimed eviction on this ground in Civil Suit No. 500/66 filed in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Baroda. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit but in appeal which was Civil Appeal No. 246/68, the learned Assistant Judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the education cess of Rs. 4.55 was payable by the tenant as rent and since he failed to make that payment within one months after the receipt of the notice making the demand, the case is covered by Clause (a) of Section 12(3) of the Rent Act and, therefore, the tenant has rendered himself liable to be evicted.2. The facts of the case show that the notice making the demand of rent in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Gokaldas Zinabhai Vs. Dadhra Thakorlal Chunilal and (Deed, Throug ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR842
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of the eviction suit filed by the opponent Nos. 1 to 6 against the opponent No. 1 as the head tenant and the petitioner as the assignee in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Cambay where the said suit was registered as Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961. The premises in question consist of a shop at Cam-bay. The facts of the case show that on 11th December, 1957 opponent No. 1 executed a rent note with respect to the suit premises as found at Ex. 34. One of the terms of the rent note was that the tenant should vacate the suit premises without any dispute and without insisting upon a notice whenever the landlord desired to take possession.2. It is found that the head tenant fell into arrears of rent with the result that on 24-9-1960 the opponent No. 1 Thakorlal Chunilal who has since died, served him with a notice of eviction on two grounds namely:(1) Non-payment of arrears of rent, and(2) Bonafide personal requirement.By this not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »